From ectheory-skills
Guides revision strategy for Econometric Theory decision letters: triages referee comments, prioritizes proof fixes, structures the point-by-point response letter.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/ectheory-skills:ectheory-rebuttalThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- An ET decision letter arrived: revise-and-resubmit, or major/conditional revision
At a theorem-proof journal the referees are checking your mathematics, not your causal story. The handling editor's letter sets priorities; under the editorial leadership from 1 January 2026 (Guggenberger, Su, Sun), expect demanding technical review. Because review is single-anonymous, the referees already know who you are — keep responses on the merits.
ectheory-identification-strategy for assumptions/proofs, ectheory-data-analysis for
simulations), update exhibits, then write the letter.At a theorem-proof journal the report is a proof check, so each objection maps to a concrete mathematical remedy, not a rhetorical reply.
| Referee objection | Class | The ET fix this round |
|---|---|---|
| "Conditions too strong / not primitive" | fundamental | primitive moment+dependence pair; show high-level version follows |
| "Rate stated, no distribution theory" | fundamental | add the limiting law (mode, normalizer, functional) with the argument |
| "Hard step (uniformity) sketched" | fundamental | isolate as a named lemma with full proof; overflow to Supplement |
| "Result is a special case of [X]" | disagreement | counter with the dimension you relax, or concede and reframe |
Promising to "address in future work" a gap the referee identified is the classic way to turn a revise-and-resubmit into a reject — close it with real math this round.
A referee objects that the proof assumes finite eighth moments where finite fourth should suffice. The fix: re-derive the variance bound via a maximal inequality needing only fourth moments, add the weakened condition as the new Assumption, and verify it in the DGP. The entry reads: "We have weakened Assumption 2 to finite fourth moments (p. 7), re-proving the key bound via a maximal inequality (new Lemma 3, Supplement S.2)." What changed, the new lemma, the exact location — that is what the editor scans for. Settle disagreements with a counterexample, a corrected derivation, or a citation, never assertion; keep every response anchored to a theorem, lemma, section, or page.
【Decision】R&R / major / conditional
【Editor's binding points】[...]
【Classification】fundamental: [...] / clarification: [...] / disagreement: [...]
【Math routed to】ectheory-identification-strategy / ectheory-data-analysis (as needed)
【Letter】point-by-point with exact locations? [Y/N]
【Supplement used】overflow derivations moved, Article <=50pp? [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit the single PDF via ScholarOne (ectheory-submission for file checks)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin ectheory-skillsStructures point-by-point rebuttal letters and revision plans for Econometrica manuscripts after receiving referee reports. Helps sort referee comments and organize proof fixes, generality additions, or simulation evidence.
Drafts a response letter and revision plan for AEJ: Micro R&R. Structures replies to theory referees on correctness, generality, and exposition; triages comments by priority.
Drafts a structured response letter and revision plan for The Econometrics Journal using referee triage, evidence rules, and venue-specific pushback patterns.